Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The chaos codex has daemon weapons also being called 2 handed weapons.

It's a good thing there are rules for Two Handed CCW then isn't it!

Gwar! wrote:It's a good thing there are rules for Two Handed CCW then isn't it!

Greater Daemon!

Really puts it in perspective; we are all so busy complaining about how there is a rule that so rarely matters, we didn't even stop to think about how much more we would be complaining if the rule didn't exist for those rare occasions in which it does matter.

which was mostly codeces written in 2006-2007(or prior)

Well, all that would happen is that things such as Big Choppas would give a Bonus attack were the Two Handed CCW rule not there.

Interestingly, Relic Blades are NOT Two Handed. They are described as being held with two hands, but they do not have a rule saying they are Two Handed. Instead, it just has a "No Bonus Attack" rule in the codex.

They also don't benefit from the +1S of Furious Charge, but that's another issue that we will leave for now! xD

Gwar! 2010/08/06 14:20:18 Subject: Singing Spears?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, all that would happen is that things such as Big Choppas would give a Bonus attack were the Two Handed CCW rule not there.

Interestingly, Relic Blades are NOT Two Handed. They are described as being held with two hands, but they do not have a rule saying they are Two Handed. Instead, it just has a "No Bonus Attack" rule in the codex.

Perhaps its an issue of different printing versions, but my copy of codex SM has on page 99 under the rules for relic blade the following:

"Relic blades are two-handed swords or axes"





Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:Perhaps its an issue of different printing versions, but my copy of codex SM has on page 99 under the rules for relic blade the following:

"Relic blades are two-handed swords or axes"

Sliggoth

This is what is commonly known as "Flavour Text" or "Fluff".

Please note that there are no rules for "Two-Handed swords or axes" in the rulebook. There are rules for "two-handed close combat weapons", which the Relic Blade is not, as it is never given a rule that says it is a "two-handed close combat weapon".

But....pg 42 lists swords as close combat weapons.

So by looking at the rule on pg 99 we find that the relic blade is a two handed sword or axe, and by then looking at the BRB on pg 42 we see that swords are ccw. So the rules DO tell us that a relic blade is a two-handed ccw, at least the ones that look like swords.


Now, my copy of the SM codex is missing a designation of "Fluff" or "Flavor Text". The heading of the section starting on pg 97 is titled wargear, and says that this section lists the weapons and equipment used by SM, along with the rules for using them. Since the relic blade rules on pg 99 are part of this section, this would make the rules for the relic blade...well.....rules.

While parts of some of the paragraphs in this section are descriptive in nature, that really is what we are looking for here: a description of the weapon so we know in which category to place the relic blade.



Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:But....pg 42 lists swords as close combat weapons.

And "Swords" is not the same as "two-handed close combat weapons".

Gwar is of course right, relic blades are never specified in their rules as being 2h, or else they would not need to add the bit saying you cant gain an extra attack with them. Flavor text isnt rules.

As for a recent 2h ccw, glaive encarmines with blood angels.

I vow I won't touch that can of worms in this thread. Phew, that's over with.

The rule book meta-states that any weapon (which is described to be) used with two hands or with one hand are considered two-handed close combat weapon or one-handed close combat weapon respectively. It specifically mentions, among others, a two-handed battle axe as an example of a two-handed close combat weapon.

Additionally, and please correct me throughly if I'm wrong, any one-handed ranged weapon count as a single-handed close combat weapon. In other words, anything one-handed that is a weapon of any kind is also a one-handed close combat weapon (naturally, the remote to a WMD is NOT a weapon, the WMD is the weapon). Provided the weapon states it is one-handed.

I'm being led to believe by the rules that you should count anything not explicitly printed as one-handed, as two-handed.

P.S. Having a vacation without even digital copies of the rule books, well, it does things to you. Take my above post lightly.

I know what you mean, ive been in vegas the last 4 days

kill dem stunties 2010/08/07 18:12:48 Subject: Singing Spears?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gwar is of course right, relic blades are never specified in their rules as being 2h, or else they would not need to add the bit saying you cant gain an extra attack with them. Flavor text isnt rules.

The problem being, which part of the rules for relic blades on pg 99 is flavor?

"Due to its size and weight, a model wielding a relic blade cannot get an extra attack for an additional close combat weapon."

"Relic blades are two-handed swords or axes sheathed in an armour-sundering power field."


Seems like BOTH lines have flavor text in them, eh?


And either line also would restrict a model from getting an extra attack, so really which line is fluff and which line is the hard rule is a matter of opinion.



And really, since both lines are indeed under the rules heading for relic blades we really do need to consider that both lines are a part of the rules. If we start to call some of the rules in this section fluff then where do we stop? And for that matter, where do we even start calling these rules fluff? Unless someone here is Matt Ward in disguise then knowing what the author intended to be fluff in the rules section is beyond our call.



Sliggoth

Sliggoth wrote:

kill dem stunties 2010/08/07 18:12:48 Subject: Singing Spears?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gwar is of course right, relic blades are never specified in their rules as being 2h, or else they would not need to add the bit saying you cant gain an extra attack with them. Flavor text isnt rules.

The problem being, which part of the rules for relic blades on pg 99 is flavor?

"Due to its size and weight, a model wielding a relic blade cannot get an extra attack for an additional close combat weapon."

"Relic blades are two-handed swords or axes sheathed in an armour-sundering power field."


Seems like BOTH lines have flavor text in them, eh?


And either line also would restrict a model from getting an extra attack, so really which line is fluff and which line is the hard rule is a matter of opinion.



And really, since both lines are indeed under the rules heading for relic blades we really do need to consider that both lines are a part of the rules. If we start to call some of the rules in this section fluff then where do we stop? And for that matter, where do we even start calling these rules fluff? Unless someone here is Matt Ward in disguise then knowing what the author intended to be fluff in the rules section is beyond our call.



Sliggoth

Did you look at all the Weapons descriptions in the Weapons page?

EVERY last one of them has the same set-up: 1 Paragraph of Fluff, a line break, 1 Paragraph(or sentence or shooting profile) of rules. It is very easy and Clear to discern which part is fluff and which is rules(even when the rules have fluffy bits written in).

Also, I am pretty sure the fluff doesn't refer to the unit's as "models".

Ahhhhh, I must have missed entirely the part where they tell us that the first section of each of the weapons under wargear is fluff. Oh wait....hmmm...hmm....no, they dont really do that, do they?

Yes, part of the rules under wargear is DESCRIPTIVE in nature. Part of the rules there tell us about the weapons, how they would be used in the game....which just happens to be what the two handed rules are all about. The rules for if a ccw are single handed or two handed are defining how the weapon is used in the game.

Now its quite possible that some people may not like how GW words its rules (that would be most of us I believe). GW is adept at creating obtuse rules books. But if we are going to refer to RAW in this forum at all, then we really do need to at least pretend to look at the RAW here.

By RAW, pg 99 tells us that relic blades are two-handed. Quite simply, pg 97 tells us that this section is a listing of SM weapon and the rules to use them in 40k. The relic blade is a ccw. The rules on pg 99 tell us that it is a two-handed weapon. Being two handed is a rule for cc weapons, so yes this is indeed a rule telling us that the relic blade is two-handed....

Now if we venture into RAI, where we attempt to interpret what the author meant when he wrote this section pg 97-103. Perhaps we can guess that there are bits of fluff in there, but:




Even if there are bits of fluff in this section, what would make a valid rule to not be a ruile?




We have a rule telling us that a relic blade is two-handed, yes?

Being two handed is certainly a normal possible rule for a cc weapon, yes?

So the arguement is that a rule should be ignored as fluff because its in the first paragraph of the relic blade rule rather than in the second? We are really going to say that clear rules, in what is definitely the rules section of the codex, should be ignored simply because of their position in the listing?


This would seem to be creating one's own house rules version of 40k just because one doesnt like how the codex looks.



Sliggoth

it literally makes no difference at all how many hands it takes to hold a relic blade. stop arguing about it